[Philosophy] A Guide to Internet Arguments

[Tom Paine]

Author: Tostig
Original Thread: A Guide to Internet Arguments

A Guide to Internet Arguments

The Preamble:

First and foremost I am writing this from an Emotivist perspective. Emotivism was a meta-ethical theory proposed by A. J. Ayer, a British philosopher known for his promotion of logical positivism, particularly in his books Language, Truth and Logic (1936) and The Problem of Knowledge (1956).

Logical positivism is a philosophy that combines positivism; which states that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge with a version of a priorism, the notion that some propositional knowledge can be had without, or "prior to", experience. Essentially it argued that unless a theory was either empirically verifiable or analytically correct then it wasn’t worth bothering about. However the flaw in it was that a statement of the logical positivist position is neither of these, and so by its own thinking is not worth bothering with.
Why am I looking at it from such a viewpoint then? Emotivism focuses on what statements reveal about the speaker rather then what they are attempting to influence you to do. A person saying that killing is wrong presumably has some negative emotional reaction when confronted with the concept of killing; the statement of its wrongness can thus be construed as a direct consequence of this reaction.

Emotivism was never very popular amongst philosophers. This was because a discussion about things that could not be proven was essentially just people expressing their emotions, “Abortion is morally wrong” was no more worthy then, “Abortion – Huzzah!” since both statements are just expressions of the person’s emotion towards the subject.

The Argument:

First and foremost in order to have some kind of dispute you need a difference in opinion. It doesn’t matter if it is two individuals or simply a single individual whose views are dramatically different from that of the rest of the forum; so long as there is a gulf between the two points of view there is room for conflict.

The Taking Up of Sides:

The initial stage of a disagreement is nothing more then people expressing their views about something which has happened or has in some way caught the attention of the posters. Here on our calm and scholarly forums it is often an article with some bias that has been posted to encourage discussion – elsewhere it might be an offhand remark or an unjust action. There is not much conflict yet, merely a stating of ones opinion about the topic.

The Bickering About Facts:

Later on those involved might seek to influence and change the opinion of the other person. This can be done in copious different ways. The objective appears not to try and change the persons view but rather to show them that they do not understand the subject as well as you do, and so their opinion is shoddily formed. This can be done by referring to sources or to facts and figures. here on the forums we frequently use wikipedia due to its neutral point of view and abundance of information. If I wanted to, for example, disagree over the legitimacy of smoking I might look up facts and figures and use them to illustrate that smoking is not as bad as the other “side” thinks.

Having done these, two things can happen – either they can agree on a set of facts or they can disagree. Perhaps the most blatant example of the latter is to be found in the Boycott Booze Thread, where one poster preferred to believe a source which later turned out to be himself then to accept the sources others where providing. An example of the former, on the other hand might be the Three inmates die in Guantanamo thread, where people agreed on what had happened but still disagreed on how to interpret it. Either way unless both sides have come to an agreement it will continue.

The Confrontation:

Since, according to Emotivism, there is no absolute moral scale there is no way to end these disagreements. If I were to say, “Yes, rape is causes pain and anguish and humiliation, but I still think it is a good thing” having been told everything that there is to know about rape then most people would be shocked. At this stage it appears that the main purpose in the argument is merely to assert ones superiority, and thus the superiority of ones position. This can be done in a number of ways many of which you might recognise. There are ad hominem attacks – merely direct assaults on the character of the person that you disagree with. Fortunately here these would be suicide, and since nothing would be gained anyway they are usually not attempted. A far more sensible approach is to try and unpick the logic of the other person’s position. This is a highly valued skill because it enables one side to appear not only correct but also nobler and more able. To a certain extent sheer intimidation is often used in the real world, however we are fortunate that here it is not merely a case of “he with the biggest club wins.”

The Dismissal, aka. The Flame:

This is where Emotivism comes into its own for explaining arguments, both in the real world and online. If they still believe in their views, after agreeing on the facts and arguing about the validity of each other, then they simply reject the other. This can be done in a nearly numberless amount of ways, but ones to watch out for are stereotyping “You’re just a liberal, with liberal bias”, “Stupid Daily Mail reader” and malicious personal attacks. Look at Abortion, Euthanasia or Animal Rights. Each of these ethical topics has by and large reached this stage – no progress can be made to reconcile the different points of view and so they write off and attack each other at the same time.

No Consequences:

Now the first things that I must make clear is that reality will obvious not match my version of events exactly – people may disappear for a while or new participants may join the discussion, however broadly the stages I have outlines will be recognisable within any debate.

On the internet however there can be no bullying, no sizing up of opponents. Equally there is no stalking off to lick ones wounds. There can in effect be no winner, as the image with the disabled runners points out. So then why do we discuss and debate? In my opinion it is because it is pre-programmed into us to convert rather than to tolerate. Whenever different cultures and points of view have met, be it in the temple, the city or the trading post confrontation has inevitably followed. It is only by understanding what is happening that we can truly seek to deal with differences properly.